Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Mujahideen, Pakistan & CIA: Unholy Trinity
While right-wing hacks try to do cover-up work for the CIA, they don't have to. The corporate media will keep this story "unimportant" for a long, long time.
<div align=justify><font size=2><P><CENTER><FONT SIZE="4">
<B>Born in the CIA</B></FONT></CENTER>
<P>
<DIV ALIGN="center">By Amjad Hussain</DIV>
The New York Times Magazine recently carried a cover story, "Jihad U", about a religious school located in the northwestern hinterland of Pakistan. According to Jeffrey Goldberg, the writer of the article, this particular religious school or madrassa, is not only the hot bed of militant Islamic fundamentalism, it is also the spiritual centre of gravity for the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan.
<P>
There are hundreds of similar madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. How a religious school located along the turbulent North Western Frontier of Pakistan came to be the training ground for the likes of Taliban of Afghanistan and their supporters in Pakistan is an interesting question. The answer, however, lies not in the devastated Afghan countryside or in Pakistan but in Langley, Virginia, the home of America's Central Intelligence Agency.
After the Soviet withdrew from Afghanistan, the country was engulfed in a bloody civil war. The Taliban were the answer to the nasty conflict between the warring factions of Afghan freedom fighters or mujahideen. To understand the Taliban phenomenon, we need to rewind to the early days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The US was caught off guard when the Soviet forces entered Afghanistan in 1979. Though an indigenous Islamic resistance movement had arisen against the Soviets, it had no chance of succeeding on its own. America, for its own strategic reasons, was eager to help but needed a common link that the mujahideen could identify with. That common link between America and its allies and the hapless mujahideen turned out to be religion.
<P>
From that point on, the struggle was between the camps of believers and non-believers or as was stated at the time, between Dar-ul-Islam, the abode of the faithful, and Dar-ul-Harb, the abode of the infidels. This medieval concept envisioned the world into two distinct camps. Once inside the abode of the faithful, the West became a full partner in jihad against the Soviet infidels. For ten years (1979-1989), the CIA and the Pakistan army trained and equipped mujahideen and Muslim mercenaries from around the world to fight the Soviet infidels. Armed with the latest American weapons and burning with religious zeal, the mujahideen took on a super power and defeated it. But at an enormous cost. Five million Afghans were forced to flee the country, the land was devastated and a pervasive gun and drug culture permeated Afghanistan and next door Pakistan. Once the Soviet forces left, the mujahideen turned on each other.
<P>
The Taliban were the creation of the US with the active support of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as an alternative to the warring mujahideen. During the Afghan conflict, Pakistani strongman General Zia-ul-Haq also exploited religion to hang on to power. He channeled large sums of foreign aid to the religious parties to open madrassas throughout the country. These schools operated in the old medieval tradition and taught only religion and that too of the most orthodox persuasion. Most of the current Taliban leadership was educated in these schools.
<P>
At the time, the Taliban were centred in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar. With the active support of the US and Pakistan, the Taliban (Persian for students or students of religion) emerged from Kandahar and in a short span of a few years, captured most of the country from the warring mujahideen. They were able to restore a much needed law and order in Afghanistan. And they enforced a ritualistic, authoritative and archaic version of Islam that is brazenly anti-feminist and anti-West.
<P>
This is the Islam they had studied in the dusty madrassas in Akora and elsewhere. This Islam considers America as its main enemy. It supports and protects any one who is against America as it has done with Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the embassy bombings in East Africa two years ago. Even though Afghanistan is in desperate need of outside help, its protection of Osama remains the main stumbling block in the way of improved relations with the West. Given the black-and-white mindset of the Taliban, they would go to any length to protect him.
<P>
This stand has won them many supporters in Pakistan. A Taliban style religious revival is gaining ground in Pakistan. The call for such revival is emanating not only from religious parties and teachers and students of the madrassas but from the spick and span brass of the Pakistan army as well. During Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization campaign, the well disciplined and highly efficient Pakistan army also went through an ideological metamorphosis. Even though General Pervez Musharaf, the current head of the country, is considered a moderate, his support rests with generals who are more conservative and orthodox than the Sandhurst-trained officers of the past.
<P>
The Afghan war of liberation was a long nightmare that did not end with the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from that country and subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union. It left behind not only a devastated Afghanistan and the rise of militant fundamentalism but also a weak and unstable nuclear Pakistan with a pervasive arms and drug culture and three million semi-permanent but restive refugees within its borders.
<P>
The Jihad University that The New York Times featured in its magazine is but one of the legacies of the abode of the faithful. The distance between the dusty town of Akora, the home of this particular madrassa, and Langley, Virginia, the home of CIA, is a rather short, if one looks at the whole picture.
<P>
The writer is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Ohio and an op-ed columnist for the daily Toledo Blade
<BR></font></div>
<B>Born in the CIA</B></FONT></CENTER>
<P>
<DIV ALIGN="center">By Amjad Hussain</DIV>
The New York Times Magazine recently carried a cover story, "Jihad U", about a religious school located in the northwestern hinterland of Pakistan. According to Jeffrey Goldberg, the writer of the article, this particular religious school or madrassa, is not only the hot bed of militant Islamic fundamentalism, it is also the spiritual centre of gravity for the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan.
<P>
There are hundreds of similar madrassas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. How a religious school located along the turbulent North Western Frontier of Pakistan came to be the training ground for the likes of Taliban of Afghanistan and their supporters in Pakistan is an interesting question. The answer, however, lies not in the devastated Afghan countryside or in Pakistan but in Langley, Virginia, the home of America's Central Intelligence Agency.
After the Soviet withdrew from Afghanistan, the country was engulfed in a bloody civil war. The Taliban were the answer to the nasty conflict between the warring factions of Afghan freedom fighters or mujahideen. To understand the Taliban phenomenon, we need to rewind to the early days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The US was caught off guard when the Soviet forces entered Afghanistan in 1979. Though an indigenous Islamic resistance movement had arisen against the Soviets, it had no chance of succeeding on its own. America, for its own strategic reasons, was eager to help but needed a common link that the mujahideen could identify with. That common link between America and its allies and the hapless mujahideen turned out to be religion.
<P>
From that point on, the struggle was between the camps of believers and non-believers or as was stated at the time, between Dar-ul-Islam, the abode of the faithful, and Dar-ul-Harb, the abode of the infidels. This medieval concept envisioned the world into two distinct camps. Once inside the abode of the faithful, the West became a full partner in jihad against the Soviet infidels. For ten years (1979-1989), the CIA and the Pakistan army trained and equipped mujahideen and Muslim mercenaries from around the world to fight the Soviet infidels. Armed with the latest American weapons and burning with religious zeal, the mujahideen took on a super power and defeated it. But at an enormous cost. Five million Afghans were forced to flee the country, the land was devastated and a pervasive gun and drug culture permeated Afghanistan and next door Pakistan. Once the Soviet forces left, the mujahideen turned on each other.
<P>
The Taliban were the creation of the US with the active support of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as an alternative to the warring mujahideen. During the Afghan conflict, Pakistani strongman General Zia-ul-Haq also exploited religion to hang on to power. He channeled large sums of foreign aid to the religious parties to open madrassas throughout the country. These schools operated in the old medieval tradition and taught only religion and that too of the most orthodox persuasion. Most of the current Taliban leadership was educated in these schools.
<P>
At the time, the Taliban were centred in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar. With the active support of the US and Pakistan, the Taliban (Persian for students or students of religion) emerged from Kandahar and in a short span of a few years, captured most of the country from the warring mujahideen. They were able to restore a much needed law and order in Afghanistan. And they enforced a ritualistic, authoritative and archaic version of Islam that is brazenly anti-feminist and anti-West.
<P>
This is the Islam they had studied in the dusty madrassas in Akora and elsewhere. This Islam considers America as its main enemy. It supports and protects any one who is against America as it has done with Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the embassy bombings in East Africa two years ago. Even though Afghanistan is in desperate need of outside help, its protection of Osama remains the main stumbling block in the way of improved relations with the West. Given the black-and-white mindset of the Taliban, they would go to any length to protect him.
<P>
This stand has won them many supporters in Pakistan. A Taliban style religious revival is gaining ground in Pakistan. The call for such revival is emanating not only from religious parties and teachers and students of the madrassas but from the spick and span brass of the Pakistan army as well. During Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization campaign, the well disciplined and highly efficient Pakistan army also went through an ideological metamorphosis. Even though General Pervez Musharaf, the current head of the country, is considered a moderate, his support rests with generals who are more conservative and orthodox than the Sandhurst-trained officers of the past.
<P>
The Afghan war of liberation was a long nightmare that did not end with the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from that country and subsequent disintegration of the Soviet Union. It left behind not only a devastated Afghanistan and the rise of militant fundamentalism but also a weak and unstable nuclear Pakistan with a pervasive arms and drug culture and three million semi-permanent but restive refugees within its borders.
<P>
The Jihad University that The New York Times featured in its magazine is but one of the legacies of the abode of the faithful. The distance between the dusty town of Akora, the home of this particular madrassa, and Langley, Virginia, the home of CIA, is a rather short, if one looks at the whole picture.
<P>
The writer is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Ohio and an op-ed columnist for the daily Toledo Blade
<BR></font></div>
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
yes, we gave money to the mujahadeen.
duh.
anyone who watched Rambo III knows that.
but to claim that by doing so we somehow also funded the taliban is quite dishonest.
the fact that later mujahadeen factions allied themselves with the taliban does not mean that we funded the regime to begin with.
But your new line of reasoning which is Mujahideen does not equal the Taliban is ridiculous. As we all know, al-Qaeda is not only comprised of the Taliban, but "hundreds of cells around the world." Now, where do you think radical Islamic fundamentalists got the weapons, arms and military know-how to build a worldwide cell network? That's right, CIA arms funneled through Pakistan's ISI.
Sorry. Your attempt to whitewash the CIA's complicity has been one futile attempt after another. You are a moving target with no real argument besides "USA GOOD! CIA GOOD!" ...
Meanwhile, the posts on the site are not only detailed historical explanations of the connections between CIA and US foreign policy and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists, but in contrast to your ever-shifting patriotic rantings, I think you can see why its considered ludicrous that your superficial ideas are on the TV news, while the more involved explanations are censored.
It is exceptionally amazing how many people think that Hollywood references are as strong as historical ones. I suppose future generations of Americans will consider the Pearl Harbor and Titanic movies as factual references when speaking of the histories these films portrayed. Hollywood butchers history and serves it to the American public on a golden platter. Try reading some books and shooting your TV instead.
----
That's good. It shows development on your part past nationalism.
------
eeks, believe it or not you are not some enlightened buddha sitting atop a mountain dispensing your wisdom to the infidels. different people can have different beliefs, all of which can be valid.
the fact that you arrogantly believe that you're one train of thought is best applicable for all of humanity only betrays your true quasi-fascist leanings.
furthermore, you are entirely ignorant of current events
-----------
al-Qaeda is not only comprised of the Taliban, but "hundreds of cells around the world."
-----------------
umm, al-qaeda is an entity that is separate from the taliban, although it is harbored by the taliban.
---------
Now, where do you think radical Islamic fundamentalists got the weapons, arms and military know-how to build a worldwide cell network? That's right, CIA arms funneled through Pakistan's ISI.
----------------
no.
the CIA funded the mujahadeen who fought the soviets.
it did NOT fund the taliban militia, which again arose in the early 90's.
radical islamic fundamentalists in the al-qaeda network get their money in large part through donations taken up by various islamic groups, much like how the IRA funded itself through irish organizations in the US.
additional funding also came from bin-ladin who's personal wealth was estimated to be around 150 million or so.
ramona: you are obviously too dense to understand humor when you see it.
furthermore, you like my friend eeks also betray your "enlightened" arrogance when you think that you are some cultured individual in possession of higher truths, and that i'm somehow a lower form of life since i partake in the occassional hollywood flick
And by plenty of other nation-states. But it is irrelevant. Your contention is that Mujahideen does not equal al-Qaeda, but Taliban does. It is weak. It is semantics. If you don't think that flooding afghanistan with stinger missiles, military funding, military training, etc has led to a militant group based in afghanistan, that you've got some common sense issues.
Furthermore, it is all made moot by the fact that the US is currently supporting and fighting a war alongside the Northern Opposition, who are also Mujahideen leftovers, who also have ties to al-Qaeda, and who are also rapists/terrorists/murderers. The United States support of disgusting warfare in Afghanistan did not end when the USSR left Afghanistan. It continues to this day. It is happening right now, even as you post on this BBS that it has never happened.
This has nothing to do with "different viewpoints" ... it has to do with what the facts are.
a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist and you will be held accountable by the United States,'' Bush
said.
so if george bush and ronald reagan funded terrorists, what does that mean? the hypocrisy is outstanding
But it is irrelevant. Your contention is that Mujahideen does not equal al-Qaeda, but Taliban does. It is weak. It is semantics. If you don't think that flooding afghanistan with stinger missiles, military funding, military training, etc has led to a militant group based in afghanistan, that you've got some common sense issues.
-------------------
how is it semantics?
the taliban are primarily a religious organizatiosn based upon a strict interpretation of the sharia. they arose in the early 90's and came to dominate afghanistan.
the mujahadeen is a term used to describe a loose coalition of different groups mainly breaking down on ethnic and tribal lines, all of which fought the soviet union.
and, al-qaeda is a terrorist network spread out across the world.
the three are each distinct and separate. look at the news. former mujahadeen are abandoning the taliban. however, the taliban itself continues to fight in kanadahar and kordunz.
as for the US causing afghan militancy.
not quite.
the culture has always been that way, and that type of warrior culture existed long before the soviets invaded. let's not forget the british's entry into afghanistan earlier in the century. the afghans were militant far before sept 11 and far before the red army moved in.
and yes the NA are mujahadeen leftovers. again, they are not one large unitary group but a collection of one.
its also doubtful that they have ties to al-qaeda as most NA factions are rather notorious for hating foreigners. thus, al-qaeda, with its primarily arab background, wouldn't be too popular with the NA.
hmmm: yes, george bush and ronald reagan harbored groups that could be correctly labelled as terrorists. and yes it is hypocritical.
so what?
statecraft is ultimately about protecting one's own citizens. leave out the moral mumbo-jumbo and the foreign policies of just about every state falls into this pattern
The back-and-forth between Taliban and northern opposition groups should dispel that simplification.
Furthermore, the schools that born the Taliban ... it is well documented (especially by women advocacy groups in Afghanistan, like RAWA) that the Taliban religious beliefs were born and bred in Pakistani schools with US support.
I think your position is stated quite clearly: "moral mumbo jumbo" ... I wonder how you would feel about that if your family and friends were being torn apart by US bombs (again).
The mujahideen are a loose coalition of militant groups... which encompasses northern opposition groups, the Taliban, etc
---------------------
omfg.
how many more times do i have to say that the taliban didn't even EXIST until the early 90's.
again, some of the mujahadeen later allied themselves with the taliban religious militia, mainly the pashtun ones, when the taliban made a bid for power.
however, the taliban are NOT mujahadeen simply b/c they were not involved with fighting hte soviets b/c they didn't exist back then
----------------------------
Furthermore, the schools that born the Taliban ... it is well documented (especially by women advocacy groups in Afghanistan, like RAWA) that the Taliban religious beliefs were born and bred in Pakistani schools with US support.
----------------------------------
umm, born and bred by pakistan in order to use against india and funded by the saudi's.
what pray tell would hte US interest be to support the taliban in the early 90's? afghanistan dropped off of washington's radar once the soviets were ousted. why would it suddenly appear again in the 90's with the taliban?
--------------------------
I think your position is stated quite clearly: "moral mumbo jumbo" ... I wonder how you would feel about that if your family and friends were being torn apart by US bombs (again).
---------------------------
the pentagon, dept of state, and CIA, exist first and foremost to protect US civilians.
Apparently you will keep saying it until it gives you the out from this argument that you want.
Unfortunately, this article and the countless others posted on this site contradict what you are trying to assert.
For instance, the analysis made in this article is that the Taliban were funded and armed by the US and Pakistan as an alternative to other warring mujahideen factions. And yes, that was *in the 90s*. Hahaha.
Additionally, you keep ignoring the fact that the US continues to fund, legitimize and promote Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in Afghanistan by supporting the northern opposition forces.
"what pray tell would hte US interest be to support the taliban in the early 90's?"
Are you dumb? As you have admitted yourself, stability in Afghanistan is necessary for the oil pipeline out of the Caspian. As if billions of barrels of oil is not enough motivation, the US needs to be a player in this region. In case you hadn't noticed, there are billions of people living in Asia and they are competing with the US globally now. It is within the United States' interest to modify the geopolitical dynamics in this region for its own benefit (read: profit).
The U.S., historically, supports "client states" wherever it can. It prefers diabolical, repressive regimes. The U.S. has historically gone out of its way to covertly overthrow regimes which are democratic in order to put a "US-friendly" dictatorship in. That is why the US funded, armed and supported the Taliban. Just as it did Saddam Hussein. Just as it did Noriega.
"the pentagon, dept of state, and CIA, exist first and foremost to protect US civilians"
Hahaha. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. All of these organizations exist to protect the wealth and stability of the US ruling class. Who was the CIA "protecting" when it funneled crack into Los Angeles?
I think it is clear from your lack of meaningful argumentation that, in fact, the United States Government has funded, armed and promoted fundamentalist terrorists in Central Asia. According to George Bush, anyone who does that deserves to be killed. So, I am supposing you support military strikes against the Pentagon?
why not use our contacts to begin construction of a client regime immediately after the soviets withdrew, and instead as you claim wait several years for this?
this article proves nothing, other then that the article claims in a few sentences that the US funded the taliban.
thats literally the extent of his proof, he claims it and hten offers no empiracal evidence.
its funny how you deride the "corporate" media or academic journals both with powerful institutional safeguards yet you are willing to believe any hack who writes an article
as for the CIA and crack.
the author has basically retracted his story seeing how he was never able to actually produce a smoking gun, only a series of coincidences.
i will now turn off my brain and mindlessly recite chomsky. forgive me for thinking.
1. the Mujahadene(Holy Worriers) was a lose coaltion of tribal politcal religoius groups that opposed the soviet backed goverment of "the People's Democratic party of Afghanistan (PDPA)",The Mujahadene ha broad Bi-partisan suppot form US congrass and the president they gave Aid (food Money) and most of all wepons to any group(including drug lords) willing to fight the soviets.
2. after the withdraw of soviet troops withdrew from Afganistan, the PDPA communist goverment clapsed Afaghans becane to fight among themselvs ther several interum govemnts as religous and tribal tensions fueled the civil war. some students who as children grew up fighting the soviets were studiying in Pakistan they grew up to hate everything foigeners and "infedls" represented. The pakistani govemnt wanted to keep out Russian Influance put down drug lords and end the fighitng, these zeluos Afghan Students were just the thing and the ISI pakistani secret police "Known for there Brutality " aided these student in forming the Taliban which means "holy student" led by a Mullaha named Muhamned Omar they led a false sing of peace to war weary Afganistan and were able to conquer agahnistan. Some USA Republicans Courted the Taliban for there destruction of opium popies and it's mistrust of Iran .Some liberal activist in the US and around the world condemed the Taliban for there grose mistretment of women. The Taliban goverment was only (Offically) recognised by 2 countries Sudia Arabia and Pakistan
3.Osma Bin laden the son of a well off Suadi Arabian buissness man started a aproject In Aghanastan funed by the US CIA and Bin ladens money was used to fight Soviet backed Rejimes but after the gulf war Bin laden became disalushined with the US Becase it's stationg of US trops in Suadia Arabia and turned his Organization against the US and It's allies. This new Al-Queda was funed by the Taliban in Afaghanistan and the Islaminc Fundamntalist goverment in The Sudan(not Iran or Iraq)'but that is another story. The Sudan cracked down on Al-Quda after september 11 the Taliban did not.
alas, what should i expect?
pray tell, how was the Cold War a fight to protect US corporate interests? the corollary benefits of increased free trade was of course there, but as any simple economic survey will tell you the benefits of free trade are dispersed across the US, not just limited to a few corporations.
likewise, although economic benefits did play a part in the cold war, they were still not the primary movers. the primary mover of hte cold war was the soviet invasion of eastern europe and their attempts to enter into the west.
as for the US gov't not being able to protect us from terrorists.
wrong again nessie.
can they fully protect us? of course not. but, they can still reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks, as they are doing now by destroying al-qaeda and its taliban supporters.
again, the same "logic" in you saying that the US can't stop terrorism is equivalent to me saying taht social policy cannot end poverty, thus the social safety net has obviously failed and must be ended.
hopefully even a dimwit like you can see the fallacy of such an argument.
well, at least i have my hopes that you can.